G-Flex. I didn't address you specifically, I just expressed a wish. If you have a clear conscience, that's good enough for me.
But I can give you my opinion on the topic you refer to, if you want.
What I do blame the Tea Party and Republicans for is their violent, revolutionary, gun-talk rhetoric, which they seem to take very lightly for use as a cheap political tool. You don't do that. That kind of talk is serious, and we can't normalize using rhetorical devices steeped in violence and revolution just for the hell of it. When someone literally goes nuts and shoots his political opponents, that becomes all the more obvious.
I agree that violent talk and attempts to put different groups of people against each other harms society. It may escalate at some point.
But, after saying that you didn't blame them for the shooting you end up somehow stating that their rhetoric IS responsible for the attack.
"That's what I'm being. If you would read the sort of arguments I'm saying, you'd realize that I'm not trying to "blame" the Republicans or the Tea Party for the shooting; he might have very little to do with them." - Not blaming, very little to do with the event (define little)
"That kind of talk is serious, and we can't normalize using rhetorical devices steeped in violence and revolution just for the hell of it. When someone literally goes nuts and shoots his political opponents, that becomes all the more obvious." - It becomes the more obvious because he did what he did BECAUSE of the rhetoric?
As you see... I agree with your principles. I advocate wise rhetoric and repudiate politicians who promote a violent political environment but I question your conclusion when you tie this specific case to that kind of talk.